When we speak of war, when we speak of past wars we speak of young men lost before their lives have truly begun. Of battle. Of triumphs. Speak of the Second World War and we might mention the home front and of women taking on men's jobs, or cooking with rations. When it comes to war and sex it seems we can't help but romanticise it. Films and books about war often feature a young unwed couple deciding that love conquers all and the girl (this is always a hetero couple) allowing the boy to finally get a quick fiddle beneath her chemise. I'm sure this was and is the reality for some people. War is so terrible we can perhaps be forgiven for wishing to sentimentalise it on occasion. However when we talk about war and sex we need to talk about sex being used as a weapon of war. [Trigger warning]

Today Angelina Jolie and William Hague - an unexpected power couple - will be co-chairing the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. The summit hopes to create "irreversible momentum against sexual violence in conflict and practical action that impacts those on the ground".

Why is there a summit about this? According to available statistics every year around 150 million women and girls are raped in conflict zones. Men and boys are not escaping sexual violence either with 70 million attacks reported. Every year.

In 2008 rape was recognised as a war crime and last year the G8 - under UK presidency - announced an agreement that rape during war was in grave breach of the Geneva Convention. At the time Hague said: "Our goal must be a world in which it is inconceivable that thousands of women, children and men can be raped in the course of a conflict, because an international framework of deterrence and accountability makes it impossible," Mr Hague told a summit of G8 foreign ministers."

So we are agreed. War = bad. Rape = bad. Hague smash. But while we have made these announcements and apparently poured Â£23 million into funding to deter and investigate sexual atrocities in war and bringing those responsible to justice it's hard to see much of this hoped for momentum yet.

So we are agreed. War = bad. Rape = bad. Hague smash.

How can we lead so vocally on the fight against sexual violence in war while our Home Office and Immigration fails to act and deal properly with women asylum seekers who have come to them as victims of sexual violence.

Anna Musgrave, the women's advocacy manager at the Refugee Council commented: "This summit demonstrates there is a dangerous lack of joined-up thinking when it comes to tackling sexual violence against women. These are the same women".

While Musgrave acknowledges the work being done she notes it's important we pay attention to those who have escaped to the UK: "On one hand, you've got real progress being made in conflict zones overseas, but when those same victims make it to UK shores it's a completely different story. Women often aren't believed, and instead of being protected they're further traumatised by the asylum system. It's critical that the government tackles this issue with the same gusto at home as it's doing abroad and protects the survivors of sexual violence."

We know that rape is not about sex, it's about power. We know therefore it's an effective weapon of war, if not the most effective if we remain sceptical about it - we make the penis mightier than the sword.

Looks like one of the talks required at the summit should be titled #IBelieveHer.